For the last eighteen years using rats in Pavlovian preparations, we have demonstrated that many deficits in learned behavior (e.g., overshadowing, blocking, and effects of preexposure to conditioned or unconditioned stimulus [CSs and USs]) are due, at least in part, to processes that occur at the time of performance, rather than during acquisition as is assumed by contemporary models of selective associate learning. Our data prompted us to reject the traditional associative position, which states that over a series of training trials subjects learn only a few summary statistics, and encourages the view that subjects encode a rich, nearly veridical representation of their experiences. To direct our research, we developed the 'comparator hypothesis', which is a (performance-focused) rule for translating into behavior knowledge acquired through simple spatio-temporal contiguity. Our studies were designed to challenge the prevailing theoretical emphasis on selective acquisition of associations. As we (and others) published ever more data problematic to the traditional associative emphasis on acquisition processes to the exclusion of information processing at the time of testing, researchers started acknowledging the importance of posttraining information processing. Some investigators concurred with our performance-focused account of these findings. But other researchers have recently extended existing acquisition-focused models so that they predict retrospective revaluation of associations (i.e. new learning about a previously trained CS on posttraining trials on which the CS is absent), while still denying the occurrence of critical processing at the time of testing. These revised acquisition-focused models can account for much of the data that we previously viewed as uniquely supportive of our performance-focused account. Consequently, they stimulated us to further develop our model (i.e., the extended comparator hypothesis) and design experiments for which these new acquisition-focused models and the extended comparator hypothesis make divergent predictions. We have already performed a few of the experiments and we now propose a number of additional ones. Experiments that discriminate between these two families of models will contribute to a fuller understanding of learning, memory, and acquired behavior, and will importantly direct the agenda of scientists investigating the neurophysiological basis of learning a memory. After several decades of slow growth in our understanding of acquired elementary behavior, great progress is now being made. The proposed experiments are designed to challenge the prevailing view that acquisition processes are highly selective, and that performance is a simple expression of encoded summary statistics (i.e. selective associations).